Re: package rejection
On Friday 03 December 2004 16:19, Kevin Mark <kmark+debian-devel@pipeline.com>
wrote:
> 2) can not be sexist
Bad idea. We should avoid subjective criteria.
> 3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
> location of the server
Bad idea. Some countries have stupid laws and we should not pander to them.
There are laws against encryption and against reverse engineering (which
could get strace, ltrace, and gdb).
> 4) can not offend someone's religion
Even if they are of the church of emacs?
> 5) must be able to be installed by minors
What age is a "minor"? What things is a minor not permitted to see? That
seems more of an issue for their parents to determine rather than Debian.
> 6) can not be off-color sexually or culturally
Again it's a subjective criteria.
> does it have to pass all of these, all the time?
How about you go off and create a distribution that panders to all the silly
ideas. The rest of us will keep making Debian usable.
A distribution with no crypto, no debugging tools, and nothing that might
possibly offend (think about "killing child processes", the "mount" command,
etc) is not going to be of much use to anyone.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: